Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 May 2012
Received in revised form 13 August 2012
Accepted 27 August 2012
Available online 14 September 2012
Keywords:
Projective mapping/Napping
Shape
Descriptive analysis
Comparison
Red wine blends
Multi-factor analysis
a b s t r a c t
Projective mapping (PM) or Napping are fast alternatives to traditional descriptive analysis (DA), and are
becoming more popular among sensory scientists to obtain a quick overview of (dis)similarities among a
certain sample set. Ideally, PM should be able to deliver similar results as a DA, and this aspect has been
studied extensively in the last years, also in comparison to other fast alternative descriptive methods.
Other aspects of research include the effect of replication and how to analyze the data.
Besides the two previously mentioned aspects (the effect of replicates and the comparability with DA),
we focused in this study on the effect of the provided PM space, and compared a square to a rectangular
space, and whether the obtained results would differ. In two consecutive studies, we compared a square
conguration to a horizontal and a vertical rectangle conguration. We found that the judges did position
their samples in a different way when confronted with a differently shaped space. These results suggest
that the PM product representation depends on the provided space.
A last aspect of this study was dealing with individual performance, how this could be measured, and
how large the effect of the individual judges on the overall solution is. Generally, judges that did not use
the usual Cartesian coordinate system to position their samples did not affect the consensus PM solution.
This can be most likely attributed to the large number of panelists in our studies. Additionally, we propose a people performance index (PPI) to measure the ability of an individual to place blind duplicated
samples close to each other.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the recent past, alternatives to conventional and traditional
descriptive analysis methods (generic descriptive analysis (DA)
and its trademarked variations) have gained more and more interest. All these alternative methods try to overcome drawbacks from
DA, which are mainly (i) the longer time needed to obtain results
due to the need of panelist training, and (ii) the importance to obtain consensus on particular attributes, which sometimes induces a
difcult task when working with expert judges like wine professionals or chefs.
according to them the Napping technique is a sub-form of PM, restricted to a rectangular space (60 40 cm), with no data scaling
prior to the analysis solely with MFA. Various sub-forms of Napping were identied based on (i) the holistic nature of the task (divided into global Napping, where the panelists are not restricted to
one sensory modality, and partial Napping, where judges are
asked to focus on a single sensory modality (e.g. aroma, or taste,
or texture, etc.)), and (ii) the descriptive attribute collection by
combining the Napping task with ultra-ash proling (UFP) or
simple sorting. In a sense the partial Napping can be seen as a
compromise in between the holistic global Napping and the atomistic DA (Perrin & Pags, 2009).
In contrast to Napping conventional PM is less restricted, and
can be carried out on a square space (e.g. 60 60 cm) or a rectangular space, using both structured and unstructured hedonic line
scales, and can be analyzed with other techniques than MFA (e.g.
GPA). A so-called structured PM is a PM with labeled axes on the
provided space: King and coworkers applied both methods in their
study on snack bars, and used the structured PM with the x-axis for
liking labeled from low to high, and the y-axis for the intended
use from treat to meal replacement (King, Cliff, & Hall, 1998).
That being said, as both methods use the same concept i.e. a
two-dimensional sorting procedure we believe that this strict
separation between PM and Napping needs to be further
discussed.
PM and Napping have been applied on a broad range of foods
and beverages (see Table 1): all these studies compared PM or Napping to other sensory methods, usually DA, but in a recent publication the authors compared PM to DA and other fast alternative
descriptive methods (Dehlholm et al., 2012), or to repertory grid
(RG) and ash proling (FP) (Veinand, Godefoy, Adam, & Delarue,
2011). With the exception of one study, all publications used 12
or fewer different samples, that were also rather easy to discriminate (Barcenas, Elortondo, & Albisu, 2004; Dehlholm et al., 2012;
Kennedy, 2010; Kennedy & Heymann, 2009; Nestrud & Lawless,
2010; Pags et al., 2010). An exception was the study by King
et al. who studied 18 quite different snack bars (King et al.,
1998). Three studies evaluated similar white and red wines from
the Loire region, differing in vintage, producer, appellation and/or
time spent in an oak barrel (Pags, 2005; Perrin & Pags, 2009;
Perrin et al., 2008).
From a methodological and developmental point of view, it
makes sense to test the feasibility of PM by using a relatively small
number of samples that are somewhat easy to differentiate. However, from a practitioners point of view, the applicability of a study
on 8 different fruit drinks or 10 apple varieties does not seem easily
165
transferable to more practical sample sets containing more and, often, quite similar samples.
In the literature, for the sorting task, a technique with similar
intent to PM, between 10 and 20 samples are recommended. On
the one hand this is a big enough sample set to study differences,
and on the other hand there are not so many samples that palate
fatigue and frustration with the task become an issue (Lawless &
Heymann, 2010). Pags (2005) suggested a limit of 12 samples
for Napping on his ndings for white wines from the Loire region.
In this study we used a higher number of samples (18) to test this
hypothesis and to see whether there is an upper limit for PM sample sizes.
Another point of discussion for PM and Napping is whether the
tasks should be replicated or not: while in some studies the products were positioned only once (Dehlholm et al., 2012; Kennedy &
Heymann, 2009; King et al., 1998; Nestrud & Lawless, 2008, 2010;
Pags, 2005; Pags et al., 2010; Perrin et al., 2008), other studies
did specically investigate the effect of replication on the obtained
product spaces: using 15 untrained consumers Kennedy (2010)
evaluated the effect of replication on the spatial product presentation, and found that the PM plots differed a great deal for each
judge from replicate to replicate. She speculated that these different arrangements might arise from a change in the arrangement
criteria. However, the consensus product maps did not differ much
from each other, indicating, that averaged over all judges similar
product arrangements were made. Similar results were found by
Risvik et al. (1994, 1997) using blueberry soups and chocolates: a
low similarity of the product maps over three replicates was found
for individual judges, but the solutions obtained by GPA for all
judges for each replicate were very similar. For ewes milk cheeses
(Barcenas et al., 2004) judges grouped some samples together in all
three replicates, while two cheeses showed a low repeatability:
The authors speculated that variability in the cheese production resulted in different cheeses in the three replicates. An alternative to
true sensory replication could be the use of blind duplicates within
the product set, i.e. when one or two or all products are presented
twice. This procedure allows you also to check how capable the
judges are to actually pick up similarities. In two studies conducted
by Nestrud and Lawless (2008, 2010) the judges were able to position the blind duplicates close to each other, a similar result that
was reported as well by Veinand et al. (2011) for lemon ice teas
using untrained consumers.
It was found that about 615% of the judges have problems with
the PM task (Nestrud & Lawless, 2008; Pags, 2005; Veinand et al.,
2011) i.e. were unable to create a plane product representation
map. One way to overcome this constraint is a short introduction
or training prior to the PM task as done by Risvik et al. (1994,
1997) and Barcenas et al. (2004) who both used the example of
intercity distances from Kruskal and Wish (1978), or handing out
a brochure with an explained example (Veinand et al., 2011). Similarly, we included a short training exercise in our study using various shapes differing in color and size.
When compared to other sensory methods, good agreement can
usually be found between the PM or Napping product spaces and
conventional DA (Barcenas et al., 2004; Dehlholm et al., 2012;
Pags, 2005; Perrin et al., 2008; Risvik et al., 1994, 1997). When
using both untrained consumers and trained judges for the PM task
Barcenas et al. (2004) found a better correlation with the DA for the
PM with the trained judges. Similarly, untrained consumers in a
PM detected the major differences among the samples similarly
to trained judges in a DA, but did not pick up the smaller differences (Risvik et al., 1997). An extensive comparison with other fast
descriptive methods was recently published (Dehlholm et al.,
2012): similar product maps were obtained with all methods, but
the highest similarity was found for DA and the partial Napping.
Similarly, using untrained consumers and comparing PM to FP
166
Table 1
Summary of projective mapping (PM) and Napping studies comparing evaluated products, applied methods, used statistical techniques and major ndings.
Products
Sensory method
PM
replicates
PM space
Blind
duplicates
Descriptors
PM statistical analysis
9 Liver pates
No
60 40 cm
No
From UFP
MFA
RV to compare methods
bootstrapping for CI
Similar maps in
all methods
DA and PN highest
similarity
within
and
between panels
18 Commercial snack
bars
No
60 60 cm
No
No
CA less effective
than MDS or GPA
With
unstructured PM additional information
was
recovered
5 Commercial
chocolates
21 29.7 cm
(A4) marked
with crossed
axes
No
No
GPA
RV to compare methods
PM is able to link
consumer
and
sensory studies
High similarity
between DA and
PM for replicate
session 2 and 3
with RV over 0.7
7 commercial
blueberry soups
29.7 x 42 cm
(A3)
No
No
High agreement
between DA and
PM in the rst
dimension only
Conclude
that
consumers pull
out major differences similar to
DA, but not smaller ones
For each PM replicate large individual
differences were found
8 smoothies 4
avors from 2 brands
No
No, but
considered
it
from UFP
HMFA
Expand the PM
task with categorization using the
sorting task to
group
similar
samples
Analyze then by
HMFA
No
Yes, 2
juices
Yes, collected
after 1st
session for
scaling
exercise in
session 2
Consumer panel
produced similar
maps in PM and
scaling,
while
chefs did not!
2 out of 30
judges had difculties with the
PM task
60 60 cm
Major ndings
Publication
10 Cheddar cheeses,
10 apple varieties
No
60 60 cm
Yes, 2 for
each study
From UFP
MFA
RV to compare methods
Hierarchical clustering on
coordinates from MFA; multiple
regression with coordinates of
common maps to predict
attributes
PM better than
sorting due to
better
dened
clusters in PM
Judges had more
difculties with
apples
than
cheeses
Kennedy (2010)
8 Granola bars
60 60 cm
No
From UFP
Little similarity
for
individual
judge
between
replicate sessions
Speculates if they
changed their PM
criteria
Overall consensus map was stable over replicate
sessions
Similar
maps
with all analytical methods
1112 chocolates
with 9 common in all
three panels
No
60 x 60 cm
No
From UFP
MFA for PM
RV to compare methods and
panels
Good correlation
between PM and
DA
Good correlation
between panels
Product separation
mostly
based on cacao
content
Low
RV
for
judges who used
a different separation criterion
29.7 42 cm
(A3)
No
No
Pags (2005)
5 Vouvray Chenin
Blancs and 5 Touraine
Sauvignon Blancs
No
40 60 cm
From DA
panel
MFA
1015% of the
judges had problems with the
PM task
Recommends DA
to
obtain
attributes
Recommends to
limit number of
products to 12
wines
167
168
Table 1 (continued)
Products
Sensory method
PM
replicates
PM space
Blind
duplicates
Descriptors
PM statistical analysis
Major ndings
10 Loire Chenin
Blancs differing in
vintage and oak
ageing
No
40 60 cm
No
From UFP
Similar product
maps from all 3
methods
40 60 cm
No
From UFP
Good agreement
between
maps
from UFP and DA
Napping procedure
pushes
judges to nd discriminating
attributes
No
29.7 42 cm
(A3)
Yes, one
product
From UFP
Some consumers
had
problems
with
map
creation
Suggest to limit
PM to expert
judges
Difculties
to
compare
PM
with RG and FP
due to different
numbers
of
dimensions
Similar product
maps from all 3
methods
Consumers were
able to detect
the
duplicated
samples
PM, projective mapping; DA, descriptive analysis; UFP, ultra-ash proling; FP, ash proling; FMS, free multiple sorting; GN, global Napping; PN, partial Napping; CI, condence intervals; PCA, principal component analysis;
MFA, multi-factor analysis; HMFA, hierarchical multi-factor analysis; PMFA, procrustes multi-factor analysis; CA, coordinate averaging; INDSCAL, individual difference scaling; MDS, multi-dimensional scaling; GPA, generalized
procrustes analysis; RV, regression vector; RSQ, squared correlations; RG, repertory grid.
Publication
and RG, Veinand et al. (2011) found similar product maps for the
studied lemon ice teas. All these results indicate that with PM
and Napping products are similarly characterized as in a DA, however, a product map alone is not the complete story until the obtained differences among the samples can be explained by
descriptive terms.
For this reason, PM and Napping are usually combined with an
attribute collection exercise, either from an ultra ash proling
(UFP) or descriptors from a conventional DA. While the former allows the judges to freely create and add descriptive terms for each
product or product group, is the latter more specic in terms of
denition. For each descriptor in a DA at least a verbal denition
or explanation, most often an actual reference standard is available
and can be tied to the same sensation, which might be a huge issue
in the UFP: Two judges might come up with the same word for the
descriptor, but mean it in a very different way.
Based on all these ndings we felt that there were still open
questions about PM and Napping, mainly whether the provided
space and the shape of this space would inuence the product
arrangement. Therefore, we designed a PM experiment as follows:
in two studies we investigated the shape inuence on the PM task
and compared these ndings to conventional DA. All tasks (PM and
DA) were carried out in triplicate on the same sample set of 18 red
wines (three monovarietal and 15 blends made thereof). The provided spaces differed in the shape and had roughly the same area.
Table 2
Wine composition of the used samples in both PM studies.
a
b
No.
Label
Cabernet Sauvignon
(S) [v%]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
S
M
F
SM11
SM91
SM82
SF11b
SF91a
SF82
MS91b
MS82
MF11
MF91
MF82
SMF111a
SMF811
MSF811
Blend
100.0
Merlot (M)
[v%]
100.0
100.0
49.6
90.1
80.2
49.4
90.1
80.3
9.9
19.7
33.4
80.0
10.1
30.4
50.4
9.9
19.8
50.6
9.9
19.7
90.1
80.3
50.7
90.1
80.0
33.2
10.0
79.9
14.9
49.3
9.9
20.0
33.4
10.0
10.1
54.8
169
170
PPI1a
Replicate 2
Replicate 3
PPI2a
PPI1a
PPI2a
PPI1a
PPI2a
Rectangle
gh
0.15
cd
0.89
ah
0.35
md
0.27
tj
0.14
sl
0.31
0.20
0.34
0.33
0.36
0.38
0.75
0.10
0.80
0.33
0.51
0.55
0.39
0.44
0.09
0.58
0.44
0.53
0.58
0.30
0.55
0.65
0.08
0.29
0.24
0.89
0.28
0.09
0.28
0.55
0.41
xs
0.4 0.28
0.4 0.18
0.5 0.23
0.4 0.19
0.4 0.21
0.4 0.28
Square
kc
sj
ac
tc
mk
bl
0.09
0.54
0.44
0.39
0.70
0.37
0.09
0.39
0.82
0.43
0.81
0.15
0.49
0.22
0.22
0.25
0.38
0.35
0.20
0.11
0.39
0.12
0.59
0.46
0.25
0.63
0.77
0.58
0.73
0.11
0.56
0.32
0.30
0.39
0.65
0.21
xs
0.4 0.21
0.5 0.31
0.3 0.11
0.3 0.20
0.5 0.27
0.4 0.17
Judge
PPI1, PPI calculated for the SF91 blend; PPI2, PPI calculated for the SMF111
blend.
171
(i) the x- and y-coordinates for each judge wine and shape and (ii) a
frequency table with all descriptive terms given by the judges over
the three sessions for all shapes. We analyzed each of the three
shapes separately to study the differences in the overall consensus
product plots using MFA. RV coefcients were calculated to express similarities among the various congurations and the goodness-of-t of the consensus product positions.
To analyze if the obtained results differed depending on the
shapes (square vs. lore vs. shore) we performed a xed-effect
ANOVA on the x- and y-coordinates using wine, judge and shape as
main effects with all two-way interactions. Pairwise t-tests were
performed on the coordinates to see whether judges used the axes
similarly in the different congurations.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. People performance index (PPI)
For both studies two wines were present in duplicate in the
sample set to check whether the judges were able to position them
together. People performance indices (PPI) were calculated as described in Section 2. For the rst PM study the same judges evaluated the wines in triplicate, thus, allowing us to detect replicate
variations. Tables 3 and 4 show the calculated PPI for both studies:
in PM study 1 (Table 3) the lowest PPI values (0.08 and 0.09) were
found in both groups for judge md in the third replicate for PPI1,
for judge ah in the third replicate for PPI2, and for judge kc for both
PPI1 and PPI2 in replicate 1. The square group showed lower overall mean PPI values with a smaller standard deviation. However,
the reported PPI values did vary greatly for each judge over the
three replicates and also among the judges. Two judges from each
shape group improved from the rst to the third replicate (judge
cd, sl, md and ac), but most judges did not improve over the three
replicate sessions. Judging from these results, the positioning of
these wine samples created a difcult task for the judges.
In the second PM study (Table 4) the lowest PPI value was found
in the long vertical rectangle lore (0.10), closely followed by the
two other shapes (0.11). Overall, the PPI means were between 0.4
and 0.6 with relative standard deviations between 39% and 50%,
and with lower PPI values for the second wine duplicate (MS91).
Generally, the PPI values were higher in the second PM study:
The highest overall means were found for PPI1 in the short vertical
rectangular shore conguration, however, the observed differences among the three congurations were not signicantly different due to the large standard deviation values of up to 50%.
We believe that the inclusion of blind duplicated samples in the
PM sample set is a useful tool to check for individuals variability
and for difculty of the PM task. More studies have to be conducted
to establish guidelines what a good or useful PPI value might be.
3.2. How different are individual judges and how much does individual
oddity inuence the overall panel solution?
We were interested in individual PM techniques and found that
in PM2 some judges arranged their samples in unique ways. Most
judges used a Cartesian system with a horizontal and a vertical
dimension, with either aroma or taste-related differentiation and
grouping criteria, and they arranged their groups in a rather
unstructured way. However, we were able to identify three judges
who did something quite different (see Fig. 2): The rst example
(Fig. 2a) shows how judge mc arranged the samples in a circular
fashion, similar to a polar coordinate system, with the polar coordinate being intensity ranging from low in the middle to high on
the outside. The second dimension (i.e. the angular coordinate)
ranges from bitter in the top right corner over increasing smooth
172
Table 4
People performance indices (PPI) for all judges in PM study 2 for all three shapes. Italic values represent the minimum value for that column.
Short vertical rectangle shore
Judge
PPI1
ac
ah
aj
dw
ek
hs
ht
hy
jb
lb
mc
mh
ms
mw
nd
pb
sf
sl
sv
tc
tfo
tfr
xs
Square squ
PPI1a
PPI2a
0.17
0.13
0.96
0.53
0.20
0.36
0.38
0.63
0.74
0.14
0.48
0.67
0.62
0.12
0.58
0.11
0.65
0.34
0.38
0.40
0.10
0.50
0.63
0.22
0.77
0.37
0.22
0.65
0.57
0.29
0.72
0.32
0.56
0.79
0.35
0.72
0.36
0.47
0.26
0.61
0.60
0.50
0.28
0.32
0.25
0.67
0.52
0.16
0.85
0.11
0.42
0.49
0.50
0.68
0.41
0.37
0.51
0.68
0.18
0.29
0.31
0.37
0.13
0.29
0.81
0.34
0.4 0.24
0.5 0.19
0.4 0.21
PPI2
PPI1
PPI2
0.38
0.64
0.63
0.91
0.59
0.65
0.44
0.73
0.41
0.85
0.93
0.80
0.36
0.80
0.39
0.49
0.15
0.43
0.17
0.19
0.83
0.52
0.68
0.26
0.31
0.35
0.59
0.49
0.78
0.30
0.10
0.76
0.46
0.56
0.34
0.44
0.19
0.41
0.58
0.19
0.58
0.42
0.11
0.40
0.64
0.13
0.41
0.41
0.76
0.63
0.29
0.35
0.57
0.59
0.63
0.39
0.81
0.75
0.12
0.36
0.30
0.21
0.19
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.6 0.24
0.4 0.19
0.5 0.20
PPI1, PPI calculated for the MS91 blend; PPI2, PPI calculated for the SF11 blend.
sweetness in the top middle of the plot to musty in the bottom left
corner. In the second example (Fig. 2b) judge mh tried to come up
with different separation criteria for each session, and chose in the
third session to arrange the samples along the vertical dimension
from low to high label numbers, after they had been grouped
according to their complexity along the horizontal axis. Judge tfr
(Fig. 2c) divided the provided space into increments and positioned
the samples belonging to one group in one of these increments. It
seems that along the horizontal axis the samples were separated
according to their fruity character with high red fruit and cherry
samples on the left side and green, herbal samples on the right
side. Unfortunately the vertical differentiation could not be recovered from the judges notes. Likely, this judge did not separate the
samples along the vertical axis, thus the judge sorted the wines in
rather than using two-dimensional PM. We did not exclude any of
these judges from the data analysis nor changed the obtained coordinates in any way (e.g. converting them to true Cartesian coordinates via trigonometric functions). Removal of these judges from
the data set did not seem right as all of them followed the instructions, positioned the samples in two dimensions, and were able to
put the duplicated samples close to each other (see PPI values in
Table 4). In addition, we re-ran the MFA of all three shapes without
these three judges one at a time to check the individual impact of
these unusual PM techniques on the overall PM solution. No
changes in the RV coefcients were observed by the removal of
any of the three judges; for judge tfr and mc we ran the MFA
removing all three shapes as both did the incremental or circular PM for all three provided spaces, for judge mh we only removed the long vertical rectangle lore data as this was the only
shape where the random label numbers were used as a separation
criterion.
Based on these ndings we assume that the PM solution from
PM study 2 is rather stable and robust against out-of-the ordinary
PM arrangements. However, we also think that this robustness is
most likely due to the high number of judges (21), and speculate
that with a lower number of judges and/or more unique PM techniques the overall MFA solution will change. PM experimenters
need to keep this fact in mind.
(a)
MS91b
SM11
MS91a
SMF811
SF11a
SF82
SF91
Blend
MF11
SMF111
MF82
SM82
M
10
MF91
MS82
SF11b
SM91
MSF811
sweet
bitter
low
musty
high
0
0
20
10
20
30
(b)
SF11a
SM82
MS91b
MF11
574
648
734
795
MSF811
417
MS91a
10
SF91
797
810
933
SF82
MS82
SM91
533
644
747
SF11b
MF82
193
359
449
SMF111 SMF811
429
544
566
SM11
Blend
MF91
015
075
256
more complex
10
20
MF82
SF82
cherries,
some
wood, no
veggies,
low
pepper,
no tannin,
low sugar
10
MSF811
20
SM11
Blend
SMF811
MS82
SM91
SF91
MF91
MS91b
SF11b
SM82
herbal,
veggie,
little fruit,
viscous,
medium
pepper,
mushroom
SMF111
SF11a
higher alc,
low fruit,
veg
strong,
watery,
low
pepper,
chocolate
30
cooked
fruit,
cooked
veg, salt/
pepper,
tannin,
earthy,
oak
MS91a
MF11
tannin, medium
alc, some wood,
low sugar
(c)
0
0
10
20
30
Fig. 2. Examples of individual PM techniques: (a) circular PM, (b) using random
three-digit label numbers as separation criterion, and (c) incremental PM.
combination with the descriptor plots and the results from the
hierarchical clustering, and (iii) the results from the ANOVAs.
As described in Section 3.3, the square conguration showed
higher variability from replicate to replicate and therefore, it is
not surprising that the overall solution (using all data from all
three replicates) for the square conguration showed a smaller explained variance within the rst two dimensions than the rectangle one (25% vs. 34%) (Table 6).
In the rectangle conguration 34% of the variance could be explained within the rst two dimensions with 20% accounting for
the rst one. In the product plot shown in Fig. 4a the Cabernet
Franc F is clearly separated from the rest of the samples in the
top right corner sharing the same quadrant as MF11, the winemakers blend, SF11 and SMF111A. With the exception of the last
173
wine, all these wines were also clustered together. These wines
were primarily described with vegetative, berry, vinegar and alcohol avors and sour taste. The second monovarietal wine Merlot
M is located in the bottom right corner and shares its quadrant
with Merlot-based blends (MF82, MS82, MS92, MF91, MSF811)
and the ternary mixture SMF111B. All these wines and the
SMF111A share one cluster. Descriptions of various berries, butter
and fried fruits were collected from the judges for these wines.
The whole negative horizontal area are occupied by the Cabernet Sauvignon S (along the negative x-axis) and various Cabernet
Sauvignon-based blends (SM82, SF82, SF91A & B, SF82, SM91,
SMF811) and the binary mixture of the two Cabernets (SF11),
which were all grouped together by hierarchical clustering. This
side of the product plot was correlated to smoky, oaky, spicy, sulfury and chocolates avors and high astringency mouthfeel.
In the cluster analysis both duplicated wines (SMF111 and
SF91) were clustered together (SMF111 in cluster 2, SF91 in cluster
1), an indicator that over all three replicates and all judges the similarity of these wines was detected.
In contrast to the rectangle product plot stands the square one
(see Fig. 4b): In this product plot both monovarietal Cabernets (S
and F) are clearly separated from the remaining samples and drive
the differentiation along the rst dimension accounting for about
13% of the total variance with chemical, plum, fruit and astringency correlating to the Cabernet Sauvignon S and dirt, burnt, pepper and sour correlating to the Cabernet Franc F. All remaining
wines are located in between those two wines. In the lower middle
part of the product map are all Cabernet Sauvignon-based blends
located (SM82, SM91, SMF811, SF91A & B, SF82, SF11), which were
clustered into cluster 3 except SM91 and SF11 (cluster 4). Closest to
the Cabernet Franc F is the binary mixture of this monovarietal
wine with Merlot (MF11) these two wines were also put into
one cluster (cluster 5). The latter wine was highly correlated to veggie, while the Cabernet Sauvignon-based blends were mainly characterized by perfume, Brett1, oxidized, oak and leather avors and
tannic mouthfeel. The upper part of the plot is dominated by the third
monovarietal wine (Merlot M), which is grouped together with the
Merlot-based blends (MF91, MS82, MF82, MS91, MSF811) and the
binary mixture SM11 (cluster 2). The ternary mixture blend SMF111A
& B were located around the plot center and clustered together with
SM91 and SF11 in cluster 4. These wines showed descriptors ranging
from jammy, butter, spice and vanilla to dark fruits.
Similarly to the rectangle product plot, the two duplicated
wines (SMF111 in cluster 4 and SF91 in cluster 3) are both located
close to each other indicating that over all three replicates the six
judges in the square group experienced the wines very similar. The
separation along the x-axis along the two Cabernet monovarietal
wines was found in the DA too (see CVA product plot in Fig. 6);
however, all other wines were not similarly positioned. This nding is in good agreement with Risvik et al. (1994), who found that
major differences were detected by trained DA judges and untrained PM consumers in a similar way, but only the DA panel
was able to nd subtle and smaller differences among the samples.
Using both congurations (rectangle and square) and performing a xed effect ANOVA on wine, replicate and shape with the
judges being nested in the shape, no signicant effect of the shape
was found. However, using all data averaged over the judges the xcoordinates showed a signicant shape effect indicating that the
position of the wines differed between the two shapes along the
horizontal x-axis (P 6 0.05). This is an interesting nding as the difference between the two shapes for both axes was about the same
1
Brett refers to the volatile compounds produced by the yeast Brettanomyces
bruxellensis that is generally considered a spoilage yeast in wine production. The
aroma can be described as sweaty horse, sweaty leather saddle, barnyard, leather or
Band-Aid.
174
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Fig. 3. MFA product plots from the rst PM study for the three replicates using the rectangular shape (a, c, e) and the three replicates for square shape (b, d, f), with added
hierarchical clusters (cluster 1, solid black circle; cluster 2, solid red triangles; cluster 3, solid blue squares; cluster 4, solid purple diamonds; and cluster 5, cyan stars).
Clusters were partitioned after a high relative inertia loss. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
the MFA solution for the three provided spaces, (ii) the three product plots in combination with the descriptor plots with the results
of the hierarchical clustering, and (iii) the results from the
ANOVAs.
In Table 7 the eigenvalues and explained variances for the three
congurations are shown for the rst three dimensions. We ran the
MFAs with and without the descriptor matrix to study the effect of
the descriptive terms on the solution, and found that for all
analyses the explained variances and the eigenvalues were slightly
c_r2
c_r3
w_r
c_s1
c_s2
c_s3
w_s
MFA
c_r1
c_r2
c_r3
w_r
c_s1
c_s2
c_s3
w_s
0.39
0.53
0.62
0.29
0.43
0.41
0.58
0.72
1.00
0.53
0.45
0.29
0.40
0.46
0.60
0.72
1.00
0.51
0.35
0.42
0.50
0.56
0.77
1.00
0.24
0.50
0.37
0.55
0.71
1.00
0.36
0.41
0.38
0.59
1.00
0.42
0.50
0.69
1.00
0.50
0.73
1.00
0.81
Table 6
Eigenvalues and explained variances for the rectangle (rect), square (squ) and both
shapes (all) in PM study 1 for the rst three dimensions (coordinate matrix c,
descriptor matrix w).
Dim. 1
Dim. 2
Dim. 3
Expl. Var.
Expl. Var.
Expl. Var.
rect_r1
rect_r2
rect_r3
1.7
1.6
1.7
30.9
20.1
22.2
1.0
1.3
1.3
18.4
15.4
17.7
0.6
1.0
1.0
11.6
12.2
12.4
rect
squa_r1
squa_r2
squa_r3
3.0
1.3
1.4
1.5
20.2
14.8
19.4
18.2
2.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
14.0
14.1
17.1
15.5
1.4
1.1
0.9
1.0
9.4
12.6
12.5
11.8
squa
all
2.3
4.9
12.8
15.2
2.2
3.7
12.2
11.5
2.0
3.0
10.9
9.2
175
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4. Overall MFA solutions with marked hierarchical clusters for the rst PM study separated for the two shapes: (a) rectangle PM space (cluster 1, solid black circles;
cluster 2, solid red triangles; cluster 3, solid blue squares), (b) square PM space (cluster 1, solid black circles; cluster 2, solid red triangles; cluster 3, solid blue squares; cluster
4, solid purple diamonds; cluster 5, cyan stars). Clusters were partitioned after a high relative inertia loss. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
176
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 5. Overall MFA solutions (product maps and descriptor plots) with marked hierarchical clusters for the second PM study separated for the three shapes: (a) short vertical
rectangle shore, (b) long vertical rectangle lore, (c) square squ. Descriptors for the shore and the squ space have a _s and _sq appendix respectively (cluster 1,
solid black circles; cluster 2, solid red triangles; cluster 3, solid blue squares), (b) square PM space (cluster 1, solid black circles; cluster 2, solid red triangles; cluster 3, solid
blue squares; cluster 4, solid purple diamonds). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
(a)
177
(b)
Fig. 6. MFA plots from PM study 1 (a) compared to the CVA plots from the DA (b). Shown are the product plot (top), the variable plot (middle), and the group representation
(bottom), with the latter one not available for the DA data.
loaded MS82, MF82 (both cluster 1) and MF11 (cluster 3). Correspondingly, the rst dimension was correlated to chemical, fruit
and smooth on the negative axis and smoke, Brett2 and astringency
on the positive axis. On the second dimension the samples were
separated along the negatively loaded sour attribute and the positively loaded sulfur, pepper and veg attributes. In addition, loadings on the 45-degree angle differentiated between smooth (top
left quadrant) and the oppositely loaded harsh descriptor (bottom
right quadrant).
In the square conguration (Fig. 5c) three wine clusters could be
identied, such as cluster 1 consisting of Merlot M and other Merlot
based blends (MS91B, MSF811) and SF11B, showing a positive correlation to darkfruit, green and wood. Cluster 2 included F, SM11,
MF11, SF82, SF11A, SMF111, SM91, which showed a high positive
correlation to the descriptors smoky and dark fruit, with the Cabernet Franc F mainly characterized by veg and pepper attributes. Three
additional members of cluster 2 (SM91, Blend and S) were positively
correlated to caramel, oral and oak aromas and sweet taste. The
very same attributes also characterized the Cabernet Sauvignon
based blends SM82, SMF811 and MF82, which were clustered in
cluster 3, together with SF91 and MS91a, which were described by
wood, green, oak, astringency and fruit descriptive terms.
178
Table 7
Eigenvalues and explained variances for the square (squ), the long vertical rectangle
(lore), the short vertical rectangle (shore) and all three shapes (all) in PM study 2 for
the rst three dimensions (coordinate matrix c, descriptor matrix w).
Dim. 1
lore_c
lore_cw
shore_c
shore_cw
squ_c
squ_cw
all_c
all_cw
Dim. 2
Dim. 3
Expl. Var.
Expl. Var.
Expl. Var.
4.3
1.5
4.8
1.4
4.2
1.5
9.6
3.4
13.1
14.9
14.1
14.0
12.3
12.9
9.7
10.6
3.5
1.2
4.1
1.2
3.7
1.3
9.0
2.8
10.7
11.5
11.9
11.9
10.9
11.6
8.8
8.8
3.1
1.0
3.3
1.0
3.6
1.1
7.3
2.4
9.3
9.6
9.6
9.7
10.5
9.8
7.2
7.6
Judging from the MFA product and variable plots together with
the hierarchical clustering, panelists positioned their wines differently depending on the provided space: While the two rectangle
congurations showed more similarity to each other (e.g. in both
cases the monovarietal Merlot and Cabernet Franc was clustered
together), was the opposite observed for the square space, where
the two monovarietal Cabernets shared the same cluster 2.
A xed effect ANOVA with two-way interactions showed a signicant shape and judge effect for the y-coordinates but not for the
x-coordinates (P 6 0.05) (Supplementary Table 3). We were interested whether our judges positioned the wines differently depending on the provided space (square vs. long vertical rectangle lore
vs. short vertical rectangle shore) and ran paired t-tests on the xand y-coordinates of the three congurations (Table 8). It seems
that the judges in the second study changed their arranging pattern according to the provided space: They used a long horizontal
dimension in the short vertical rectangle shore conguration
similarly to the long vertical dimension in the long vertical lore
rectangle conguration, i.e. they used the larger of the two dimensions similarly, independent of the orientation. The short vertical
dimension in the short vertical rectangle shore conguration
was used in the same way as the vertical dimension in the square
space. However, for the long vertical rectangle lore no signicant
difference could be found between the horizontal and vertical
dimension, and both were used similarly to the horizontal dimension of the square. One explanation for this could be that not all
judges used the whole length of the vertical dimension and used
a square space for their PM task. In both PM studies, a clear shape
effect on the sample positioning was found. For future PM studies,
the experimenter should be aware that the shape of the PM space
does have an impact on the outcome of the study.
3.5. How well does it t? Comparison to the DA
The last remaining question we tried to answer was how well
the MFA solutions of the PM studies related to the CVA we obtained from the DA data. Due to the 1 year bottle ageing in between
the PM1 and the DA to the second PM study, we only compare the
results from PM study 1 to the CVA on the DA data (Fig. 6a and b):
Table 8
Paired t-test values (a at 5%) for the horizontal (X) and vertical (Y) dimensions of the
three shapes in PM study 2 (short vertical rectangle shore, long vertical rectangle
lore, square squ).
shore_X
shore_Y
lore_X
lore_Y
squ_X
squ_Y
shore_Y
lore_X
lore_Y
NS
NS
NS
squ_X
NS
NS
179
Fruit
Floral
Oak
PM1
Rectangle
Square
Square
Shore
Lore
Fruit
Black fruit
Red berry
Berries
Fruit
Dark fruit
Plum
Fruit
Dark fruit
Fruit
Red fruit
Fruit
Dark fruit
Perfume
Oak
Burnt
Brett
Leather
Floral
Oak toast
Smoky
Oak toast
Oak
Smoky
Medicinal
Soysauce
Earthy
Chemical
Sulfur
Sherry
Black pepper
Sweet
Sour
Astringent
PM2
Alcohol
Vinegar
Dirt
Chemical
Sulfur
Dried fruit
Oxidized
Sour
Astringent
Sour
Astringent
Smoke
Medicinal
Brett
Barnyard
Phenolic
Animal
Alcohol
Sulfur
H2S
Rubber
SO2
Sulfur
H2S
Rubber
Reduced
Sweet
Sweet sugar
Astringent
Dry
Tannin
Hot
Fresh veggie
Canned veg
Menthol-cedar
Butter creamy chocolate
Lactic
Vanilla caramel
Spice
Bitter
Watery
Veggie
Pepper
Veggie
Pepper
Stemy
Cooked veggie
Veggie
Pepper
Green
Herbal
Grassy
Canned veg
Wood
Chocolate
Butter
Butter
Spice
Vanilla
Spice
Veggie
Pepper
Green
Herbal
Brett
Barnyard
Phenolic
Chemical
Solvent
Plastic
Cardboard
H2S
Rubber
Sweet
Acidic sour
Astringent
Dry
Tannin
Hot
Veggie
Pepper
Celery
Canned veg
Wood resin
Chocolate
Caramel
Spice
Low
Jam
A third way to compare how similar the MFA product plots from
the PM study are to the CVA product plot on the DA data is by calculating RV coefcients between the product positions in the individual MFA and CVA solutions. These results are shown in Fig. 7: In
the graph all individual PM solutions were compared to the DA
solution and the RV coefcients are plotted for the rst four dimensions. All MFAs from the rst study (PM1) showed a high similarity
to the DA solution, while none of the MFAs in the second study
(PM2) did. The reason for this probably is the 1-year bottle ageing
of the wines between PM1 and the DA, and the PM2. Interestingly,
the RV coefcients for the rst study decreased with increasing
model dimensions and the rst two dimensions showed the highest similarity to the DA solution for all three studied congurations
(square, rectangle and both). A similar result was reported by Risvik et al. (1994): The highest correlation between the DA and the
PM was found for the rst dimension, which the authors speculated resulted from a similar detection of major sample differences
in both sensory methods. The opposite was observed for the second PM study where with increasing model dimensions also the
RV coefcient increased.
Vanilla
Spice
Bitter
Flat
Low mild
Jam cooked fruit syrup
Bubblegum
Smooth mild
Harsh
1.0
180
squPM1
rectPM1
allPM1
squPM2
lorePM2
shorePM2
allPM2
0.5
RV coefficient
Acknowledgements
0.0
Dimension
Fig. 7. Comparison of the RV coefcients of both PM studies to the DA data for the
rst four model dimensions (PM 1 values are in dashed lines, PM 2 values are in
solid lines).
181
Perrin, L., & Pags, J. (2009). Construction of a product space from the ultra-ash
proling method: Application to 10 red wines from the Loire valley. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 24(3), 372395.
Perrin, L., Symoneaux, R., Matre, I., Asselin, C., Jourjon, F., & Pags, J. (2008).
Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping procedure:
Case of ten wines from Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference, 19(1), 111.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2011). R: A language and environment for
statistical computing: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., Colwill, J. S., Rogers, R., & Lyon, D. H. (1994). Projective
mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and
Preference, 5(4), 263269.
Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., & Rdbotten, M. (1997). Evaluation of sensory proling and
projective mapping data. Food Quality and Preference, 8(1), 6371.
Sanchez Gavito Sanchez, J. V. (2011). Comparison of Descriptive Analysis and
Projective Mapping Techniques in the Aroma Evaluation of the Distilled Spirits,
Gin and Tequila. (M.S.). Davis, United States, Davis, California: University of
California [AAT 1502270].
Tang, C., & Heymann, H. (2002). Multidimensional sorting, similarity scaling and
free-choice proling of grape jellies. Journal of Sensory Studies, 17, 493509.
Veinand, B., Godefoy, C., Adam, C., & Delarue, J. (2011). Highlight of important
product characteristics for consumers. Comparison of three sensory descriptive
methods performed by consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 22(5), 474485.